New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

NUNEZ v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2000-016-044, Claim No. 94117, Motion No. M-61691


Synopsis


Pro se claimant's motion to reargue trial decision dismissing his claim was denied.

Case Information

UID:
2000-016-044
Claimant(s):
JUAN NUNEZ
Claimant short name:
NUNEZ
Footnote (claimant name) :

Defendant(s):
THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Footnote (defendant name) :

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
94117
Motion number(s):
M-61691
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
Alan C. Marin
Claimant's attorney:
Juan Nunez
Defendant's attorney:
Eliot Spitzer, Attorney GeneralBy: Earl F. Gialanella, AAG
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
July 12, 2000
City:
New York
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

In his underlying claim, pro se claimant Juan Nunez asserted that he was kept in keeplock status for longer than he should have been at Sullivan Correctional Facility. Following a December 9, 1999 trial, Nunez' claim was dismissed in a decision filed on February 29, 2000. This is claimant's motion for reargument. CPLR 2221, which deals with motions to reargue and renew, refers by its very terms to motions and orders, and thus it appears that such a motion is not the proper vehicle for Nunez to dispute the dismissal of his claim. In any event, however, CPLR 2221(d)(2) provides in relevant part that a motion for leave to reargue "shall be based upon matters of fact or law allegedly overlooked or misapprehended by the court in determining the prior motion . . ." Claimant states that his motion is made on the grounds that "there was a misapprehension as to the point for which claimant had sought this court[']s resolution . . . and there is a [mis]understanding as to the facts of this claim." However, he has provided no explanation as to what was allegedly misapprehended or misunderstood.

Nunez also states that the Court "failed to allow claimant the right to call witnesses in his own behalf." In fact, Nunez never raised the issue of witnesses to testify on his behalf, either before or at the trial of his claim.

In view of the foregoing, having reviewed the parties' submissions[1], IT IS ORDERED that motion no. M-61691 is denied.



July 12, 2000
New York, New York

HON. ALAN C. MARIN
Judge of the Court of Claims




  1. [1]The Court reviewed claimant's notice of motion and affidavit in support, along with defendant's affirmation in opposition.